IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.47780/2016 c/w W.P.Nos.49507/2016 & 48515/2016 (LA – BDA) IN W.P.No.47780/2016:
BETWEEN :
Mr. G.P.RAMESH KUMAR S/OLATE S.P.GOVINDA RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.53, H.N.SAMAJA ROAD, GROUND FLOOR, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGLAORE ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SADASHIVA REDDY Y.R., SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI G.RAGHUNANDAN, ADV.) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560020 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY THE R-3 ON BEHALF OF THE R-2.
IN W.P.No.49507/2016:
BETWEEN :
Mrs. LEELAVATHI W/O P.N.ESHWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.410, 7TH A MAIN, 4TH B CROSS, I BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI G.RAGHUNANDAN, ADV.) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560020 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.07.2016 AT ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY R-3 ON BEHALF OF R-2.
IN W.P.No.48515/2016:
BETWEEN :
Mr. G.SURESH KUMAR S/O LATE S.P.GOVINDA RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS REP. BY HIS PA HOLDER G.P.RAMESH KUMAR S /O LATE S.P.GOVINDA RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO 53, H.B. SAMAJA ROAD GROUND FLOOR, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI G.RAGHUNANDAN, ADV.) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560020 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI C.R.GOPALASWAMY, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY THE R-3 ON BEHALF OF THE R-2.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and are taken up for final disposal at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The petitioners are claiming to be the absolute owners of their respective properties situated in Sy.No.10 of Kathriguppe village acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘BDA') for the formation of Khadi Commission Layout by virtue of the Preliminary Notification darted 9.5.1968 and Final Notification dated 28.10.1971.
2. It is contended that the petitioners acquired their properties through Sri.G. Venkatappa their vendor through registered sale deeds. It is submitted that by virtue of the Notification dated 14.7.1976 issued by the BDA, the petitioners are entitled to allotment of sites, the revenue sites being purchased by them before 1.5.1974, which have been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore. The petitioners had approached this Court seeking for consideration of their representation and this Court by a common order dated 31.10.2014 directed the respondent-BDA to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law i.e., to accommodate them by allotting sites within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Further, a Review Petition was filed by one of the petitioner Sri.G.P.Ramesh Kumar. It was clarified that respondent-BDA shall consider the case of the petitioner by accommodating or allotting the site of equivalent dimension either in Sy.No.94/1 or Sy.No.10 of Kathriguppe village or in any other place in accordance with law. In view of the non compliance of the said order, Sri.G.P.Ramesh Kumar had filed CCC No.584/2016. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, endorsement dated 14.7.2016 being issued by the BDA to the complainant, contempt petition came to be dismissed with liberty to the complainant to challenge the said endorsement in accordance with law. Hence, these petitions.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Y.R.Sadashiva Reddy representing the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the documents were placed before the BDA to establish the factum of acquisition of the properties by the petitioners through registered sale deeds prior to 1.5.1974 and ignoring the same, the respondent-BDA has issued the endorsement depriving the legitimate rights of the petitioners for the allotment of sites in terms of the Notification at Annexure-B as well as the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6586/2014 and allied matters. Similarly placed land losers in Sy.No.10 of Kathriguppe village have been allotted sites in Banashankari II Stage. One such instance is allotment letter dated 12.8.2013 followed by the absolute sale deed dated 28.2.2013.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioners being similarly placed, cannot be discriminated.
4. Respective learned counsel appearing for the BDA justifying the impugned endorsement submitted that, primarily the petitioners have failed to comply the conditions stipulated in the Notification dated 14.7.1976, no mother document was placed on record to establish the rights of these petitioners over the properties in question. In the absence of original documents relating to the title acquired by these petitioners, no request for allotment of alternative site could be considered. Hence, the rejection of the request of the petitioners cannot be held to be unjustifiable.
5. It is further submitted that the request/claim made by different land losers in Sy.No.10 was being in excess than the actual extent of land, the petitioners are bound to establish their rights over the properties by producing the requisite documents. It is further submitted that award has been passed in respect of Sy.No.10 of Kathriguppe village and compensation has been deposited before the Civil Court. One of the land losers has filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted by this Court.
6. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent-BDA requires to re- consider the representations of the petitioners for allotment of alternative site in lieu of acquisition of lands in Sy.No.10 of Kathriguppe village subject to the petitioners furnishing the original documents to substantiate their rights over the properties in question. If such documents are placed by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by the BDA on par with the allotment letter/absolute sale deed executed to similarly placed persons as per Annexures-M1, M and N to the writ petitions subject to the petitioners establishing their rights over the properties acquired, based on the documents to be furnished.
Accordingly writ petitions stand disposed of. Annexure-K dated 14.7.2016 in W.P.Nos.47780/2016 and 48515/2016 and Annexure-J dated 14.7.2016 in W.P.No.49507/2016 are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the respondent No.2 – The Commissioner, BDA to re-consider the same in accordance with law in an expedite manner. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The compliance of this order shall be made preferably within a period of 12 weeks subject to the petitioner furnishing the documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: